04 March 2008 5:06 PM

Once again David Cameron rubs the noses of his loyalists in the mud

Read Peter Hitchens only in the Mail on Sunday

And once again, no doubt, these poor deluded souls will continue to say 'Yes, it's terrible, the man's virtually a Marxist, but we've got to get Labour out, so what can we do? ' To which I reply, in what way would you be getting Labour out, by putting the Tories in? You might as well call in Dyno-Rod to get your blockage out, and then pay them to put it back in again, only perfumed with forest pine scent, or perhaps lavender. Mr Cameron is in many ways to the Left of Labour.

This is certainly the case with his new pledge to give one third of his front-bench jobs to women, if he become Prime Minister.This actually means that , in the remote event of the Tories winning the next election, every single female Tory MP would be guaranteed a ministerial post, regardless of talent or experience. Even New Labour has never quite gone this far, and I'm not sure it would even be legal for the Tories to do so.

It is automatically left-wing and anti-family to promise this. Women in politics do not represent all other women. They represent women like themselves, the ones who believe that a career outside the home is morally preferable to raising your own children. Let us not even argue whether they are right about this. I have done so often enough elsewhere. Let us simply accept that, by making the choice of office career over full-time motherhood, these women have expressed a political preference.

So, not only will they fail to speak for those women who choose to remain at home, or women who would very much like to stay at home with their young if only they could afford to - a large and growing number. They will be actively unhelpful to their case. After all, taxing one-income homes to provide day-orphanages for the children of two-income homes is contentious. And this policy is always favoured by these self-styled 'working women', who cannot grasp that those who remain at home also work, and that many who go out to work would much rather not, but are compelled by need to do so.

A (married) male MP with a wife who does remain at home, trying to make a go of it on one income, will be a much better representative for a full-time mother than one of these suited wageslave militants.

Mr Cameron and his circle have absolutely no clue about the existence of such people. In Mr Cameron's world, every house is equipped with a trained live-in nanny just as it is equipped with water, gas and electricity. I doubt if it crosses his mind to consider just how many women hate being torn from their tiny children each morning by the demands of work and the need for two salaries to pay the enormous taxes demanded by our out-of-control welfare system.

More, it is quite clearly nothing to do with a reasonable desire for rational equality of the sexes. That requires the law, and the customs of the country, to do everything possible to ensure that women are not debarred from any chosen career solely because of their sex. But to guarantee a woman a position of power purely because she is a woman, and virtually irrespective of her qualifications, is the reverse of this. It is irrational discrimination against men, and it is propaganda.

What Mr Cameron's remaining apologists are going to have to grasp is that their hero means what he says. He is not secretly planning to announce some sort of right-wing coup after he has been elected on a soppy ticket. He plans to campaign as Blue Labour, and to govern as Blue Labour. He really is the heir to Blair. He really does like Britain as it is, after 10 years of New Labour. He is saying, as clearly as he can, that a Cameron government would be a return to Blair - which is one of the reasons why Cameron Toryism is picking up so many helpers and supporters from the media Left, who prefer him to the unfashionable, non-metropolitan Gordon Brown, and feel safer with him. Something similar, I think, is happening in the London mayoral election, where Boris Johnson is enjoying a curious vogue with one-time Blairites.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

New Labour intends to end child poverty by giving out money to those adults that 'look after' them. Inflation, however, will make this money worthless and this government pretends that this isn't a problem. New Labour is so cruel. At least those of us on this blog are honest that they don't deserve taxpayers money because it needs more than money to help these children.

It is ludicrous to hear politicians talking about non existent'child poverty'. The way the media un-questioningly accept this term is alarming. The real poverty in our society has nothing to do with material wealth - it is the lack of responsible parenting actively promoted by our sick government.
Darling stood before parliament and talked about child poverty like he was some benevolent 19th century aristocrat giving money to relieve the suffering of street urchins dressed in rags. Laughable but the BBC no doubt took this very seriously
It is a highly cynical tactic - opponents opposing high spending are thus portrayed as sub-human monsters for not wanting to 'lift kids out of poverty'. On a deeper level I share Guy-Reid Brown's view that the motives behind the 'child poverty' line are rooted in Marxism and the left's hatred of the family.
Why aren't more people bothered about this and protest ? Do they take everything at face value or simply do not care about the destruction of their country ?

I entirely agree with Guy about that odiously PC phrase "Child Poverty." The frightening thing is, just how many people one knows who fall for it, and who say they are voting Labour again "because they have lifted children out of poverty."

Guy, did you read Charles Moore's piece in the Saturday before last's DT on the language of the post-60s left and how it is destroying all our liberties?

A child can only be wealthy or poor in relation to it's adult parents - child poverty can only be eliminated by eliminating adult poverty. But the mainstream media insist on giving this unquantifiable illusory concept it's own reality. Like all these things there is an ulterior motive. By separating children from parents in this style of categorisation, it is of course undermining the family. Principally, it is undermining the patriarchal role - the genetic lesbian parents clause in the new embryology and fertility bill is deeply significant.

Michael Savell is entirely right to pinpoint the continuous undermining of men in modern society - the end of male authority on the familial level means that authority is being transferred wholesale to large impersonal forces (which is why Marxism is ideologically opposed to the family) These are the same forces who have funded and promoted that other pathetic illusory nothingness and given it apparent reality - feminism. (None of these 'isms' are rooted in human nature, spirit or instinct, which is why it is crucial that people investigate their origins for themselves - these artificial 'isms' have to be funded and manipulated into existence precisely because they go against the grain of healthy human instinct and development)

The transitional period in this feminising process can be witnessed in the horrific violence of feral youth that results from the usurpation of male authority - but that also serves it's purpose in creating the most CCTV monitored country in the world. Everything is connected to everything else.

To Michael Savell I don't think a British led Europe would be any better than the dogs dinner we are now involved in . The belief that it is possible or even desirable to control, under common laws, nations with vastly different, customs, history and attitudes is fundamentally flawed.
T pretend that we could ever have a hope of being at the centre dictating terms to France and Germany is risible.

The only solution is to get out.
Unfortunately the English hating classes so many dutifully elect won't ever permit this to happen.

I agree with you how we treat our senior citizens is a disgrace. If your old or have an un-popular male disease be afraid. Work hard all your life and feel that you have done your bit paying taxes over the years and expect the best treatment? Forget it.

A dour Scottish man with stupid eyebrows will tell you your tax money is needed to relieve child 'poverty' (kid's without such neccesities as nike trainers or a playstation in new labour wonderland) or employing more outreach workers,co-ordinator's or fighting stupid wars or buying up failed banks or paying for MP's champagne lifestyle's the list is endless....

A Sedgewick's comment that "As I live in a constituency with a supine and invisible Conservative MP and a useless Conservative Council" echoes the situation where I live. At the last election the incumbent Tory was so convinced he was in a safe seat, that he really couldn't be bothered to canvas the electorate, as he felt it was an inconvenience to have to commune with the great unwashed. Imagine his horror when a local (Female) Lib dem candidate deposed him. She earned the seat by campaigning hard on local issues and at least giving the impression of listening.
And also to be fair she's actually been a good MP.
So remember getting the dead wood out of parliament can be done if you use your right to vote. People died in horrific wars to give you that right. Make sure you honour their memory by trying to make the country "Fit for Heroes" again

S.Whitfield, I don't think we will ever know what would have happened had Churchill's dream been fulfilled of a British led Europe.This was very much on the cards but as usual our politicians were too busy dismantling the empire to take any action and left it to France and Germany.This has led to us becoming peripheral and has also lost us our coal and steel industries.

The result is that we get the worst of all worlds .
Michael Crichton steered me away from believing the mass media with regard to global warming and he did at least name those who earn "loadsa money"and funding.
Feral some of our young men are.This Marxist government knew only too well what would happen if it reduced male authority but it was dominated by feminism and could
not pull back,since then male politicians have been very much on the back foot to those of the left. Couple that with giving boys Ritalin and now slowly finding out the damage it causes, indoctrinating universities with compulsory womens studies (a habit now ended),preventing boys playing
male games and sports,getting rid of male teachers through the scares of abuse claims and you might agree that some of these kids have had no chance at all.
Take healthcare,where do you imagine all the funding is going? 70% on female problems mostly to do with specific cancers,especially breast cancers in the young and very young.The male prostate,disease of which Bob Monkhouse used to remind us killed 1 man every 10 minutes got an airing some 4 months ago.The government was to have a huge screening program because there are new drugs which have very beneficial effects if the disease
is caught early enough,now put on the back burner because of the expense. All we get left with is the pain and humiliation of surgery(if worthwhile),this despite the fact that men have and are paying more health contributions than women.

Lastly we have the unedifying knowledge that our old people are being abused and that we do not look after our old age pensioners.I know for a fact that care is much better in France and that is probably so right across Europe (and Asia come to that).
We need to get back to a time when we had respect for our men both in and out of the armed forces and for men of vision and stop this stupid brainwashing.Recently our Mr Brown decorated some auxiliary air force
women from the second world war who were not combat troops but those who were responsible for ferrying the planes around from one field to another.What our brave media didn't relate is that of the 115 people so decorated not one of the women were english,nearly all american who had to be bought over for the purpose.That's what you call spin, just to make some female politician happy.

I never actually said that but as you raise the point I will try to answer it. To take the position that to trade freely we must embrace mass immigration is absurd . Switzerland signed the European Economic area agreement (EEAA) which granted access to the European single market without having to join the EU . This allows the Swiss benefits of free trade and much more flexibility in terms of protecting it’s borders without the massive costs of full membership. Why couldn’t we have done the same ?

UK European politics is sadly dominated by politicians like Shirley Williams claiming that unless we fully embrace the European integration machine we will be marginalised and ‘lose influence’ and therefore must remain members at all costs. It’s the same trick John Major played to deflect criticism with his ridiculous pledge to put Britain at ‘ the heart of Europe’ when he caved in and signed up to the Maastricht agreement . These same lame excuses have been used to keep us in the EU for over a quarter of a century. They are used for one very good reason – there simply isn’t a logical or compelling reason for us to be members of the European Community. For out political masters to admit otherwise would be for them to admit we have been betrayed. What exactly did these people hope to influence precisely ?.The destruction of our farming and fishing industries or losing the independence our forebears fought and died for ? They never say. Other fools tell us to look at a few shiny new buildings built with EU ‘redevelopment grants and tell us how grateful we should be. What gullible fools they must think we are. We pour billions into the EU coffers and receive a few pennies back and we are expected to be grateful after being patted on the head.

“Like it or not, the key issues are out of any government's hands. Our education system may be far from perfect but it's the wider anti-intellectual culture (as well as the fact that even higher education is now about 'jobs and skills') that really holds children and our wider society back and this is something non-totalitarian governments lack the power to change.”

You seem to believe Mr. Pol, I presume you are not being serious, that governments lack the power to change society. Is this really so ?. For the last 40 or more years England has been going through a social revolution. It has not happened by chance or incompetence. It is a deliberate act by a class of people that despise the culture, history and people of this Country . Marriage once the bedrock of society has been attacked by successive governments., divorce made easy and single parenthood encouraged. Generous welfare payments have destroyed the notion that before starting a family it is necessary to have a regular job and the stabilizing influence that it has on ones life. Liberals will point towards how the cruel stigmatisation of single motherhood has been relieved but this is nothing compared to the cruelty now being inflicted upon a generation of our young people. The full terrifying consequences of these actions are now starting to be seen
A new breed of highly aggressive fatherless feral boys and young men prowl the streets and corridors of our schools causing fear and anxiety. Lacking any sort of worthwhile male role model these ruthless thugs simply do not know how to behave properly. ..All too often they know that there own father either knows or cares of there existence, they’re anger then all too frequently erupts in violence and the spilling of blood on our streets of the decent and gentle that confront them. If this wasn’t bad enough the power of the police and teachers has been so badly eroded that these thugs now have to answer to nobody. The mark of political interference and social engineering are everywhere around us.

"The global economy can be mildly regulated from the UK (or EU) but there is little we can do about the rise of China/India as well as global population more generally. Should we really be trying to compete with these countries with their docile labour, lack of environmental standards and negligible democracy? "

Yes!! Or should we close down our remaining industries and become solely a nation of call centers and financial services ?. So no more steel production in Scunthorpe or cars made in Swindon.. We cannot regulate the world economy but we can make ourselves an attractive country to do business in by keep our productivity high and employment regulation low. All the opposite goals of New Labour party policy. These people have no experience of business creating wealth, creating a product or service that someone wants to buy. They are professional politicians and union dinosaurs motivated by class envy. The sort of people we need like a hole in the head.

I think you do have a point about global population and demand for resources. This is the big problem that needs to be tackled not supposed ‘global warming’. If you don’t believe me read Richard North’s book “Scared to death” cataloguing the political motives behind this scare.
I remember a University professor showing me a projection of world population and world energy demand from the 1950’s onwards and admitting after that the consequences were terrible and he couldn’t see anything that could be done about it. If the world continues reproducing at this rate there must come a time when the ability of the environment to support us is exceeded….

"Healthcare again, can be tinkered with but what can government do about the high cost of treatment combined with an ageing population?"

It can do nothing but we as a nation could easily afford the best healthcare in the world and dignified care for our elderly now and in the coming years . That is if we stop wasting so much of our wealth on the EU, bureaucracy and the bloated welfare state . This is another cruelty inflicted upon us by those caring English hating people of the left . Off course my views will be dismissed as right wing and ‘nasty ‘by these same people but it’s not my ideology that will be denying life saving drugs and proper care to the sick now and in decades to come.

Wesley Crosland I am at loss to understand why people keep attributing to me statements that I have never made. I have never said anything about, "working for change from within" because it wouldn't work and, as I have already stated several times, the Labour party now has so many of our citizens dependent on welfare and so many working for the government that any change by conventional means is probably impossible.
As to the SDP what difference would it have made if it had been successful? We would have got a bunch of useless morons promising the middle road and consensus politics who, having got elected, would turn out to be the same socialists who want to control every aspect of our lives.
If Mr Hitchens' plan is all we've got then we might as well give up now and recognise that the England we knew has gone forever and will not return.

You are right about David Cameron, his words, beliefs and policies are nothing to do with the Tory party or living in the real world. It is improbable that he will win the next general election without help from his mini me(Clegg). You have written about your "none of the above" approach. For someone with your influence this is irresponsible and counter productive unless in truth you are an anarchist. Our only way to achieve a sane government is to vote, very selectively and not blindly for the party machine. We need MPs, who are either independent or independent thinkers, not party bag carriers.
Take two leading Conservatives,as examples, Ken Clarke and John Redwood,rather incongruously paired as a leadership election duo in 2001.
Ken Clarke has an excellent brain,great presence and charisma, brilliant and honest debater but I would never vote for him because of his total support for the EU, which, with integrity, he publishes in his personal manifesto.
I would vote for John Redwood with his traditional Tory views, he is a very worthy MP. Frank Field, Kate Hoey and Norman Baker are worthies from the other parties.
As I live in a constituency with a supine and invisible Conservative MP and a useless Conservative Council I have voted UKIP in several recent elections and will continue to do so. It is no use moaning about the ruination of our country and then declining to effect a change through the ballot box, we Brits don't do revolutions.

Gareth Haines writes:- "Affirmative action for female politicians is a crime against women in every sense".

It is a crime against everyone Gareth. It is a crime against the whole of society - it's past, present and future. If forced upon sufficiently important and key areas of any culture, it's long term consequences are likely to be described, without emotion, as a fully fledged 'crime against humanity' - in every historical sense of the term.

How long is this world going to continue to be bewitched by this utterly false and distorted concept that females have a monopoly on physical and moral victim hood.

Throughout the entire history of the human race no human grouping has ever been so mollycoddled, favoured, easily forgiven for their wrong deeds, overly feted for their good - and basically given free and unquestioned license to pick at will, like low hanging fruit in a tropical forest, from the tree of life than late 20th, early 21st century western women.

And yet still they squeal. And others, sometimes without thinking, squeal for them. Future social historians are going to have a field day with this era that unfortunately has coincided with our present lives. It beggars belief.

Peter Hitchens has noted how the SDP might have succeeded in supplanting Labour had one or two things gone differently, Mike Williamson.

I believe he said that it was founded prematurely - one of the things he warns against in the creation of a new movement. But I like to point to the SDP as an evidence that the existence of the Labour and Tory parties is not down to divine fiat.

I suspect you'll come round in the end, Williamson. Unless you have a different proposal (and the working for 'change from within' the Tory Party does not qualify either if you're thinking of mentioning that one) then I'm afraid Hitchens's plan is all you've got if you seriously want to effect a realignment in British politics.

I find it incredibly strange that the unrepresented majority in Britain fail completely to realise that they do have more than two available options when it comes to election time. The vast majority of us at the next General Election will either not vote at all or begrudingly vote for a party we don't really like, just to stop another party we hate even more from getting in - and by the way putting down 'none of the above' on your ballot paper will never work.

There are millions of us who now feel totally unrepresented and yet hardly anyone will contemplate voting for a brand new political party. What do you think is the current likely percentage of people in Britain who do not feel represented by any of the three main parties? 30%, 50% or what about maybe 70% or even higher. The trouble is that the same unless parties would still dominate British politics even if 90% of us felt unrepresented. This is because the unrepresented majority is totally incapable of uniting behind a new political party - or maybe I should have said 'was' totally incapable of uniting behind a new political party. Things might be about to change.

Castleford,well said,however you are probably aware that most male jobs have been dumbed down now to accomodate women in order to put men out of work so that they can do their 50% housekeeping.In literacy and maths world tables we are so far down the list now that shortly the african nations will be overtaking us.I wouldn't be surprised if in the near future we aren't applying for aid from them.Is there this deliberate misandric view of men in Germany?
I am in France a lot and although women are
as emancipated there as anywhere I do not
get this feeling of hate for all things male as I do in this country,why do you think this is?
Mike,I think that there will be another party along shortly,it's in the wings and we have to be patient.

One more thing that strikes me about the Tories, and why they must be got rid of.

Even if, as Peter Charnely optimstically siggests, the Party's right-wingers, such as David Davis, take controlof the Party, the Tories could never, ever adopt a genuinely conservative program of reform. For one simple reason.

Even if they actually won an election, with a leader like David Davis,they are so unpopular with the people, that they could never, conceivably, win enough votes for a landslide, or even a large majority in Parliament.

And, without the comfort, and security, of a landslide victory, or at least a huge election victory, the Tories would always be too timid to bring out genuinely right-wing policies, because the margin by which they won an eletion would be so small, they would have to be far too cautious, and risk-averse, once in power.

They simply wouldn't dare do anything like bring back grammar schools, because they would be too frightened, that, even if some voters liked the idea, it would only take a few "swing-voters" who didn't like the idea, to be enough to swing the next election against them.

There is always a risk, when bringing about radical change, from the status quo, that it might backfire, and the Tories would be too scared to take this risk, if they did not have a huge majority. And they can never win a huge majority no matter how bad Labour get.

Because,as I now realise, most people just don't like the Tories, and are never going to be persuaded to.

Also, because the margin by which they hope to win an election, is so small, the Tories would have to focus most of their policies on a narrow band of "swing-voters" who decide the election. And this narrow band tend to be left-wingers.
This is because conservative and working-class people, are increasingly turned off by the mainstream political Parties, and don't tend to vote any more.

The only way we can get all those people, who desperately want a different, and better country, and want a right-wing Government, to vote, and help us get Labour out, is if we get rid of the Tories, and replace them with a new movement.

The new party could fiercely attack New Labour's terrible record in Government, without automatically laying themselves open to criticism of the Tories own terrible in Government. (as is the case now)

But, crucially, the new Party would actually have a chance of winning a landslide election victory.
This would give it the confidence to introduce massive changes, such as huge reductions in immigration, big tax reductions, and a genuine revolution in our schools, and our criminal justice and welfare systems.

Due to lack of votes,The Tory Party will always be too timid to oppose the liberal left-wing agenda.

David Davis said, during his campaign for the leadership of the Tories, said that he wanted conservatives everywhere "to be able to walk tall again".

This can only happen if the Conservative Party, is got rid of. And a new Party, with self-confidence, replaces it.

Positive discrimination would denigrate, and humiliate women in four important ways.

Firstly, it implies women are not intelligent enough to "make it" to the top in politics on their own merit, but require special "help", in order to reach the top.

It therefore implies that gender affects your chances of reaching the top, because being female makes you less intelligent. And it sends out the message that women, therefore, need special rules, discriminating against men,in order to help women compensate for their inferior intelligence.

I remember how humiliated a fat student was, at school, when a kind, and well-intentioned PE teacher,seing he was struggling, during track races, allowed him to have a headstart in the track and field competitions.
This showed everyone in the class that the kid was slower than the others, and could not race unless he was given "special treatment".
He was embarassed, and understandably so. This is what this patronising piece of Cameronism will do to women.

Secondly, positive discrimination will ensure that at least some very stupid, and incompetent women manange to get Cabinet jobs which they are hopelessly out of their depth doing.

This will embarass women further, as the female politicians (who did not get their jobs on merit)will be much less competent than the men,(who did get their jobs on merit), and will therefore make all women look incompetent and incapable of being successful politicans.

For example, the Tories did not positively discriminate and ended up with successful female politians like Margaret Thatcher.
But New Labour introduced limited positive discrimination, and ended up with Margaret Hodge, Hazel Blears, Harriet Harman, Caroline Flint, Jacqui Smith and Patricia Hewitt!

Even among the rabble of New Labour, the female members of their cabinet are by far the most hideously incompetent. Because none of them achieved their position in the party on merit.

Most women I know do not reguard Patricia Hewitt and Jacqui Smith as great representatives of the female gender in politics.

Thirdly, the women who are promoted in this unfair and unjust way, are likely to be freeloading chancers, as women with any self-respect would never allow themselves to be demeaned by actually getting a job instead of a man, just because of their gender.

It would be like allowing yourself to"win" a race, because all the other runners had to start 30 seconds after you. There is no pride in having won a top job unfairly. So genuinely proud women would never allow themselves to be treated this way.

And the type of women who do allow themselves to be given jobs,in Government, purely because of their gender, are likely to be shameless chancers,not good role models for other women,and hard-working ladies among the general public will be ashamed to be "represented" by such people in politics.

Of course, positive discrimination also embarasses the highly capable women in the Tory Party who have succeeded on merit, or are currently rising up the ladder, through genuine hard work, and talent, as they will now be perceived to have also got their jobs only because they are women!

And I agree with Peter Hitchens that yet another negative effect, for the female population at large, will be that stay-at-home mothers, beset by high taxes, and a tax credit system weighted against them, and sneered at by the feminist elites for their noble choice, will have absolutely no-one to represent them, and speak for them, in politics, least of all the female career politicians,most of whom clearly value careers over motherhood.

Affirmative action for female politicians is a crime against women in every sense.

There are actually good reasons that not as many women as men will ever make it in politics, that have nothing to do with lack of intelligence.

Research has shown that girls are generally less competitive than boys (hence they are,generally, less interested in competitive sports)and so women also tend to be less interested in politics than men. Many pieces of research have demonstrated this, including surveys of millions of women's and men's profiles on dating sites, where far more women than men listed "not interested in politics" on their profiles.

Also, being a politican is a highly time-consuming job, that allows little time for family life. (Margaret Thatcher's children famously spoke of how neglected they were, growing up, because she was always more interested in her career than in them.)

Being a politician is unique job, as it is the only job with no allowance for "maternity leave".

Therefore, many women choose not to become politicans, as they know they will be unable to spend as much time with their children, as they could if they did another job which allowed them more time off.

And of course there are many other reasons this policy is wrong, not lest the justified resentment it will create in the general public, and the fact that many highly-talented male politicans, who could do great things for the country, will be lost to the Cabinet, because of their gender.

But there is also another problem Peter did not mention.

As a society, we are currently awash with various ill-conceived schemes like this, from affirmative action in universities, forcing them to take on poorly-qualified students, to affirmative action for ethnic minorities in all kinds of public service,a dn some private sector, jobs, which deny highly-capable people jobs if they are white. This means we desperately need a brave politian to oppose political correctness, and end all forms of positive discrimination.

But,the women who achieve top Cabinet jobs purely because of positive discrimination, are unlikely to oppose positive discrimination in other aspects of public life, and would be open to charges of hypocrisy if they did, since they are beneficiaries of it.
This means we would be robbed of any chance of ever ending affirmative action in education, and every other area of life, where it is doing so much damage to our country.

Also the new rules require more interference from Head Office in the selection process for MP's and candidates, removing the liberty of local constituencies.

There are so many reasons this policy is wrong, it is impossible to list them all here.
David Cameron has revealed himself to be anti-conservative in every way.

A true conservative believes in meritocracy (that people should only rise to the top in society on merit). It is thiis belief which truly helps the poorest, as it refuses to discriminate in favour of anything, except talent.
So, however poor you are, and whether you are white, black,, female, or male, your level of success depends entirely on yourself, and how hard you work, and how gifted you are.

It is this belief that informs every other conservative belief, from support for grammar schools (which Cameron, who doesnt believe in meritocracy, obviously opposes),to the need to reward marriage , (based on the notion that thumans are responsible for how they have children, and should take responsibility for bad choices such as having children outside of stable, married relationships) to support for liberty from the state (the notion peopple must be free to make bad choices, and good choices without the state looking after them, and suceed on peronal merit, not with state help)and conservative support for the notion of personal responsibility,in the criminal justice system, and everything else.

Every single conservative idea, is based on this principle.

The idea we ought to succeed or fail, entirely on merit,(meritocracy) and the accompanying notion of personal responsibility, is under massive attack everywhere from the compensation culture to the drug laws, and the constant drive for afirmative action. Now, more than ever, we need change. Cameron's conservatives have now porved they do not even believe in this fundamental principle of conservatism, and clearly cannot provide the change this country needs.

I have finally been converted to Mr Hitchens position on the Tories, and must agree we cannot get any further with this useless Party.

We need real change, from this politically-correct strangulation of our country, which is why we have to get rid of the Tory Party, and find someone who is actually committed to change.

The only thing that now mystifies me about the Tory Party - and the manifest cloth of lunacy that it is, at best, openly contorting it's own body to fit into and, at worst, demanding even more of to be carefully tailored to fit every contour of their own pitiful hide - is the continuing presence of David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary.

I had desperately wanted him to replace Michael Howard in 2005. It wasn't to be. I feel certain that what is going on within the minds, and coming out of the mouths, of the Tory hierarchy at present is an absolute anathema to him.

What is he doing? Is he waiting for something? For his moment perhaps?

Before everyone decides to grab their shrunken passports and head off to the Rockies (or wherever), it might be worth considering that David Davis is an experienced politician. And he is certainly not of the Cameron ilk.

His presence both mystifies me, as I have said, but does provide me with a ray of hope for the Conservatives. Albeit a faint and distant one at present as I might well be jumping to far too many conclusions of course. Not so much about Davis's principles, but about his plans for both himself and his role within the Party he presently works for. But, nevertheless, he does represent, for me, a sliver of a silver lining against the backdrop of a very dark and ugly political cloud that is undoubtedly today's Tory Party.

Having watched the first programme in the BBC "white" series, about a working mens' club in Bradford, it is clear that David Cameron is not the only leader who has rubbed the noses of his loyalists into the mud.

Mr Hitchens you do seem to persist in misunderstanding what I say.
I have not disagreed with your statemnt that, "The Tories are useless" but that is not the point. I am sorry you find me unoriginal and tedious but you still have not addressed my main point which is: even if such a new party could be formed, it will be too late if it isn't already.
And anyway who would form such a party? It would probably have been easier for Abraham to find ten righteous men in Sodom than to find enough honest politicians to form an effective party.
And I am not certain what is meant by, "Within the boundaries of the law". When this government and various politicians commit illegal acts and get away with it and when politicians exempt themselves from laws which apply to everyone else, haven't they broken their side of the contract? The law is a concensus between the government and the citizens of this country. The government knows full well that it can't enforce laws that a large number of the population disagree with. That's why we have supermarkets opening on a Sunday, because the law was just ignored and there was nothing the government could do about it. That's partly why women eventually got the vote. That's why prohibition was repealed in the USA.
To Wesley Crosland "the SDP nearly succeded", I think not. A 50% approval rating in the polls means nothing, it's seats that count.

As a woman I am horrified by the prospect of 'positive' discrimination. Look at the shower in the labour government if you want to feel embarrassed and depressed. Jacqui (don't forget the q) Smith reminds me of all the mediocre but earnest grammar school girls I went to school with. Out of her depth in the Home office and therefore utterly dangerous. Harridan Harman, Baritone Kelly and Jeanette Cranky - sorry Blears just make me want to curl up and moan whenever I hear them toing the party line and bleating their chirpy Gnulabour speak. The Hodge woman - don't get me started.....I want the BEST, the BRIGHTEST, the BRAVEST to govern this country. Female politicians of all colours and creeds make me cringe. I wouldn't employ even one and they would sink without trace in the real world. Yes, maybe some women will make it through perseverance and a smidgeon of talent, but for God's sake make it a level playing field so I don't feel cheated as a poor voter. Any kind of attempt to engineer on the basis of anything other than sheer ability dumbs down. It has to. I'm a Headteacher. Would I employ a teacher on the basis of a quota of females or a particular religious belief, or the colour of someone's skin? No - the quality of education for children at my school is too important to tinker around thus. I employ the BEST teacher!! I now have 2 Australians, 2 Americans, a Canadian, 1 Irish and 2 British teachers and my school is one of the fastest-growing schools in Germany, because they are great. If you want your party to grow as fast, quality is everything, gender is irrelevant. Not rocket science. Just common sense. Think about it Dave. We don't actually like being patronised.

Mr Williamson (7th March, 2.32) bafflingly says I haven't responded to the unoriginal 'points' he makes about the risks of my proposal, to try to destroy the Tory Party by refusing to vote for it (my proposal, by the way, has not been 'None of the Above' for some time. I simply urge people not to vote Tory, whatever they do, or BNP). I ceaselessly respond to this increasingly tedious objection, which is dealt with in my long posting "why the Tories are still useless" which can easily be Googled and which he doesn't appear to have read. Of course it has difficulties, Of course it would take time. Of course it might fail. I have never said that the collapse of the Tories would lead of necessity to the establishment of a new party. But it would make such a party possible, which it currently isn't. the rest would be up to us. But I challenge anyone to come up with a better idea for real political change within the boundaries of law.

Yes Mr Hitchens you are absolutely correct but your solution to the problem, "None of the above", is just unworkable.
Firstly I do not believe that the collapse of the Tory party would necessarily cause a new, substantially different, party to emerge.
Secondly, if it did, it would take far too long to become a force in politics. In the meantime there would be so many immigrants, so many people living off the welfare state and so many people employed by the government that any change would be impossible.
I have said this before but you have declined to respond.

When Cameron first brought up the idea of 'preferred female candidates' I took the time to point out that the Labour Party having adopted this policy had been forced to put men hating harpies in positions well beyond their capabilities.
What did we get Harmon, Beckett, Hodge et al - all proven incompetents.
Now Call me Dave is going to go down the same path. More 'blame the men for all evils' times ahead then. I guess next we'll get to hear about being 'tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime !' or maybe the old familiar 'whiter than white' fairy tale.
Nope - is gotta be the old none of the above ploy for me !

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.